Direct Threat, Not Diagnostic Perfection: Fifth Circuit Endorses FMCSA-Guided, File-Review Assessments for Safety-Critical Rail Jobs and Tightens Proof of Reassignment under the ADA

Direct Threat, Not Diagnostic Perfection: Fifth Circuit Endorses FMCSA-Guided, File-Review Assessments for Safety-Critical Rail Jobs and Tightens Proof of Reassignment under the ADA

Introduction

In Vasquez v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, No. 24-50852 (5th Cir. Oct. 30, 2025) (per curiam) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRC) on an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) disparate-treatment claim (predicated on alleged disability discrimination) and a failure-to-accommodate claim brought by a safety-critical employee following an off-duty traumatic brain injury (TBI). The court held that UPRC established the ADA’s direct threat defense as a matter of law through an individualized, record-based medical assessment that reasonably relied on Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) medical guidance—even though that guidance is not a regulation, was removed from the FMCSA website, and was developed for commercial drivers rather than railroad workers. The court further held that the employee did not carry his burden to identify and prove his qualification for specific, available reassignment positions.

The opinion reinforces and extends a throughline in Fifth Circuit ADA jurisprudence: an employer’s objectively reasonable, individualized safety analysis—grounded in current medical knowledge and best available objective evidence—will satisfy the direct threat standard even if other clinicians would disagree, and physical examinations or direct consultations with treating providers are not required. Separately, on reassignment, the court underscores that a plaintiff must identify particular available vacancies and show contemporaneous qualification for those jobs; generalized interest or past performance in similar roles does not suffice.

Summary of the Opinion

Rolando Vasquez, an Electronic Technician Inspector (ETI) responsible for testing, troubleshooting, and repairing electronic systems around moving trains and high-voltage equipment, suffered an off-duty motorcycle accident in June 2019. He was hospitalized with a TBI and intracranial bleeding, received prophylactic anti-seizure medication, and was later cleared by a nurse practitioner to return to work without restrictions. Under UPRC’s rules, the injuries triggered a fitness-for-duty (FFD) evaluation, guided by internal medical standards aligned with FMCSA medical guidance. Multiple UPRC physicians and an outside neurologist conducted a file-based review and concluded that, due to the TBI and intracranial hemorrhage, Vasquez faced an increased risk of sudden incapacitation (notably seizures), warranting five years of work restrictions. The restrictions included no driving of company vehicles, no work on or near moving trains unless protected by barriers, no operation of dangerous equipment, no work at unprotected heights, and no one- or two-person gang assignments. UPRC determined the restrictions were incompatible with the ETI role and later with a signal construction role.

On Vasquez’s ADA claims, the district court granted summary judgment to UPRC. The Fifth Circuit affirmed:

  • Disparate treatment: Without deciding whether Vasquez had direct evidence of discrimination or who bears the burden on the direct threat defense in this circuit (an open question), the court held UPRC proved its direct threat defense as a matter of law. UPRC conducted an individualized assessment; it reasonably relied on FMCSA medical guidance and multiple doctors’ file reviews; and it applied the regulatory factors (duration, nature/severity, likelihood, imminence) to the ETI role’s safety-critical environment.
  • Failure to accommodate: Vasquez did not show he was a “qualified individual” for the ETI or signal construction jobs given the essential driving and one-man-gang functions. As to reassignment, his general interest in a clerk role and a single email did not establish an available vacancy or his qualifications. While his submission about a particular manager posting created a factual dispute over availability, the court affirmed because he did not produce evidence that he was qualified for that position at the relevant time, especially in light of his driving restriction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and How They Drive the Outcome

  • ADA Framework and Summary Judgment
    • 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a): Prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals on the basis of disability.
    • 42 U.S.C. § 12111(3), § 12113(a)-(b); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r): Define and authorize the “direct threat” defense—a significant, unmitigable risk of substantial harm as shown by reasonable medical judgment relying on current knowledge and best evidence.
    • Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Smith v. Regional Transit Authority (5th Cir. 2016); Haverda v. Hays County (5th Cir. 2013); Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing (U.S. 2000); LeMaire v. LADOTD (5th Cir. 2007): Summarize the de novo, evidence-based summary judgment standard and draw inferences for the nonmovant.
  • Direct Threat Defense
    • EEOC v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. (5th Cir. 2007): The ADA does not protect an employee who poses a direct threat to workplace health and safety.
    • Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal (U.S. 2002): The direct threat defense requires a reasonable medical judgment based on current knowledge and best objective evidence; supports individualized assessment.
    • Bragdon v. Abbott (U.S. 1998): “Objective reasonableness” governs risk assessments.
    • Nall v. BNSF Railway Co. (5th Cir. 2019): Articulates the Fifth Circuit’s “objective reasonableness” lens and reiterates that correctness is not the standard; also flags the unresolved burden-of-proof allocation on direct threat in this circuit (fn. 5).
    • Carrillo v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2024 WL 3861374 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2024) (unpublished): Highly influential here; upholds UPRC’s use of FMCSA guidance and a file-review process as sufficiently individualized and reasonable; notes no requirement that employer doctors physically examine the employee or consult treating providers.
    • Branham v. Snow (7th Cir. 2004): Cited only to note an inter-circuit split regarding who bears the proof burden; the Fifth Circuit again declines to resolve that split.
  • Failure to Accommodate and Reassignment
    • Feist v. Louisiana Department of Justice (5th Cir. 2013): Elements of a failure-to-accommodate claim.
    • Credeur v. Louisiana OAG (5th Cir. 2017): A “qualified individual” must be able to perform essential functions; employers need not reallocate essential functions.
    • Dillard v. City of Austin (5th Cir. 2016); Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Ass’n (9th Cir. 2001): The interactive process is ongoing and reciprocal; but it does not override essential functions.
    • Moss v. Harris County (5th Cir. 2017); Jenkins v. Cleco Power, LLC (5th Cir. 2007): Reassignment can be a reasonable accommodation, but the plaintiff bears the burden to identify an available position and prove qualification (with or without accommodation).
    • In re Taxotere (5th Cir. 2021): Appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record.
    • EEOC v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas (5th Cir. 2023): A plaintiff’s unilateral withdrawal from the interactive process can be fatal if the employer acted in good faith; the panel notes but does not resolve whether Vasquez’s outside employment cut off the process.

Legal Reasoning

The court framed the dispute within the ADA’s two-step structure: (i) whether discrimination occurred and (ii) whether, even so, the employer prevails under the direct threat defense. Without resolving the plaintiff’s direct-evidence theory or the burden-of-proof split for direct threat, the court concluded UPRC’s proof independently established the defense as a matter of law.

On “individualized assessment,” UPRC’s process involved layered review by multiple physicians—including an external neurologist—who examined Vasquez’s medical records, requested additional documentation, performed iterative risk analyses, and tied conclusions to the specific hazards of the ETI role. Although the restrictions were standardized in format, the medical conclusions and their application to the essential functions were tailored to Vasquez’s circumstances. Critically, the court reiterated that neither an in-person examination nor direct contact with treating providers is required—file reviews can suffice when they reflect reasonable medical judgment, echoing Carrillo.

On “reasonable medical judgment,” the court held it was permissible for UPRC to rely on FMCSA medical guidance to assess seizure risk and sudden incapacitation. The guidance—though not a binding regulation, removed from the FMCSA website, and originally geared to commercial motor carriers—was evidence-based and developed by a consensus of medical experts. The plaintiff’s contrary expert opinion was insufficient to manufacture a fact issue because the legal test is objective reasonableness, not medical unanimity or diagnostic perfection. The court also discounted the treating nurse practitioner’s unrestricted release because she was unfamiliar with ETI’s essential functions and because correct diagnosis is not required under the direct threat standard.

Applying the four regulatory risk factors (duration, nature/severity, likelihood, imminence), the court found the record supported a five-year risk period for seizure-related incapacitation following TBI and intracranial bleeding; the severity of harm from a sudden loss of consciousness around moving trains, high-voltage equipment, and unprotected heights is significant; the likelihood was assessed as moderate to high by the consulting neurologist; and while not necessarily immediate, the risk was sufficiently imminent given the job context. These considerations rendered UPRC’s restrictions objectively reasonable. Because those restrictions could not be reconciled with the ETI job’s essential functions, UPRC’s direct threat defense barred the disparate-treatment claim.

Turning to failure to accommodate, the court first held that Vasquez was not a “qualified individual” for the ETI or signal construction roles due to essential functions requiring driving and one-person gang assignments, both incompatible with his restrictions. As to reassignment:

  • Clerk role: Vasquez did not identify a particular open vacancy or submit evidence of qualification. General discussions and a single email query did not establish an available position, as required by Moss and Jenkins.
  • Manager role: Although Vasquez identified a specific posting (creating a fact dispute about availability), the appellate court affirmed on the independent ground that he failed to show he was qualified for that role at the relevant time. The record suggested his driving restriction would prevent performance of essential duties; pointing to prior performance in a different manager role, pre-injury, did not bridge that gap.

Finally, the panel noted—but expressly declined to decide—whether Vasquez’s interim employment outside UPRC cut off the interactive process, an issue flagged by Methodist Hospitals of Dallas.

Impact

Although unpublished, Vasquez reinforces and operationalizes several important ADA principles in the Fifth Circuit, especially for safety-critical industries:

  • Direct threat can be established by file review and consensus guidance: Employers may meet their burden through multi-physician, record-based assessments, and may reasonably rely on cross-industry medical guidance (here, FMCSA) where it reflects current knowledge and best available evidence—even if not a regulation or originally tailored to the specific industry.
  • No requirement of physical exams or contacting treating providers: Carrillo’s pragmatic approach is reaffirmed. The legal question is not whether an IME occurred, but whether the employer’s process was individualized and objectively reasonable.
  • Correctness not required; reasonableness is: The court again emphasizes that the ADA’s direct threat standard does not demand diagnostic exactitude or unanimity of medical opinion. The inquiry is objective reasonableness in light of the job’s risks and current knowledge.
  • Essential functions remain central—and inflexible absent true accommodations: When essential duties (e.g., driving, working around moving trains or unprotected heights, one-person assignments) cannot be performed within medically necessary restrictions, an employee is not “qualified.” Employers need not reallocate essential functions.
  • Reassignment claims require specificity and contemporaneous qualification: Plaintiffs must identify specific, available vacancies and show they were qualified at the time. Generalized interest, hypothetical roles, or reliance on pre-injury performance is inadequate.
  • Open question preserved: The Fifth Circuit again sidesteps who bears the ultimate burden of proof on direct threat. A published, precedential resolution would bring clarity. In the interim, employers should be prepared to prove the defense as if they bear the burden; plaintiffs should be prepared to show they are qualified notwithstanding asserted safety concerns.

Practically, Vasquez will be persuasive authority for railroads, utilities, petrochemicals, aviation, and other safety-critical employers facing post-injury return-to-work questions. It also signals that reliance on widely used, consensus-based medical guidance—even from adjacent regulatory regimes—will be upheld when tied to the job’s actual hazards and when documented through individualized analysis.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Direct threat (ADA): A defense allowing an employer to take action if an employee poses a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the employee or others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation. Determined by an individualized assessment using current medical knowledge or best objective evidence. Factors: duration, severity, likelihood, and imminence of harm.
  • Individualized assessment: A case-by-case evaluation of the employee’s present ability to perform job functions safely, considering the actual medical condition and the job’s specific hazards. It can be based on file reviews by qualified physicians; in-person exams are not mandatory.
  • Objective reasonableness: The legal standard focuses on whether the employer’s assessment and decision were reasonable given the evidence and medical knowledge—not whether the diagnosis was indisputably correct or whether all doctors agree.
  • Essential functions: Fundamental job duties—core responsibilities that define the position. Employers are not required to remove or reassign essential functions as an accommodation.
  • Reasonable accommodation: A modification or adjustment enabling the employee to perform essential functions or enjoy equal employment opportunity (e.g., modified schedules, equipment). It does not include eliminating essential functions.
  • Reassignment as accommodation: Permissible when a qualified position is actually vacant. The employee must identify a specific vacancy and show he or she is qualified to perform its essential functions, with or without reasonable accommodation.
  • FMCSA Medical Examiner Handbook: A guidance document (not binding regulation) developed for commercial drivers. Although removed from the FMCSA website in 2015 to avoid confusion with regulations and to permit updates, courts in the Fifth Circuit have allowed employers to rely on it as objective, consensus medical evidence when assessing safety risks—even outside the trucking context—if applied through individualized analysis.

Conclusion

Vasquez v. Union Pacific Railroad fortifies a pragmatic approach to the ADA’s direct threat defense in safety-critical workplaces. The Fifth Circuit affirms that employers may reasonably rely on consensus medical guidance and file-based physician reviews to conduct individualized risk assessments and impose time-limited restrictions aimed at preventing catastrophic harm. The court also reiterates that plaintiffs seeking reassignment must identify specific vacancies and prove contemporaneous qualification—generalized interest or pre-injury capability will not do.

While the opinion is unpublished and thus nonprecedential under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, it coheres with and strengthens the circuit’s existing doctrine (Nall, DuPont, Carrillo) and offers clear operational guidance: document an individualized, evidence-based assessment tied to actual job hazards; focus on objective reasonableness rather than diagnostic perfection; and in reassignment disputes, insist on proof of a particular vacancy and present qualification. Until the circuit resolves the burden-of-proof split on direct threat, employers prudent enough to fully develop the defense—and plaintiffs prepared to meet it head-on—will be best positioned in future litigation.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Comments